Al Sharpton Is Wrong About the Monkey Cartoon

I guess you don't like Al Sharpton. That's a unique perspective. But going all patriarchal on your fellow Americans who know racism when they see it, is far more reprehensible than Sharpton. Black people have been "joked" about as if they were apes globally, by white soccer fans, citizens, and legislators. They are regularly murdered by police with impunity. Loser's-- or as he calls himself "Luzer's" reference to President Obama's father means he too operates under the notion that Obama's father was referenced by the chimp. Racist? Yeah.

First, I would say this is a poorly constructed political cartoon. The truth is, Obama is most strongly connected with the Stimulus bill, so any joke about said Bill would immediately be connected with Obama, not with anyone else. Secondly, even if the racist angle was not Delona's intent, any editor worth his salt should have spent exactly 1.5 seconds looking at this cartoon before saying "Uh, Delonas, I know this isnt what you meant, but there's another way to read this....especially given the long and troubling history of african-americans being compared to monkeys...even as recently as the 2008 campaign with some of the racist internet memes..." . This is both a failure by the cartoonist and by his editors. Thirdly, a political cartoon should jump out at you with its meaning, you shouldnt have to try to guess what represents who and how, especially when an alternative, much more negative interpretation is just waiting in the wings, yet I have yet to hear a decisive "The Chimp Represents X" explanation. No one's sure what the chimp EXACTLY represents,but its kinda sorta about the stimulus...and how poorly written it is...and its congress...or it IS Obama but not like in a racist sense....and Bush was called a chimp...and 1000 Monkeys on 1000 typewriters... Please. Humor abhors a vacuum, and in the case of this vacuum, racism rushes in to fill the void.

Daniel -- You don't seem to understand how to determine if an image or phrase is racist. Rule #1: It's not up to your interpretation, nor mine. Racist expressions are racist expressions. If my grandfather thinks “nigger” is a term of endearment, that doesn't make it true. He doesn’t get to decide that. That is determined by the linguistic-cultural context that makes the term intelligible in the first place. So if he says “nigger” in public, it’s a racist term whether he feels it is or not, and whether he "intends" it or not. But this case is not even at the grandpa level. Because you’d have to be a complete lobotomized fool to believe that this cartoonist is *unaware* of the long, long history of comparing blacks to monkeys, and to the countless Obama = monkey expressions we’ve already seen throughout the presidential campaign. *Those* are the cultural/linguistic contexts that determine what the cartoon means -- and you're simply dishonest if you try to argue that the cartoonist is "innocent" or "unaware" of all the recent Obama/monkey gags.

It's pretty obvious that the chimpanzee is supposed to be the president, isn't it? The premise of the cartoon is: 1. Obama writes stimulus. 2. A rampaging chimp is shot by two cops. 3. Cop says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." It seems to me that it's really a stretch to say that the chimp is NOT supposed to be at very least compared the president. The cops basically say that it's him! I was expecting to see a cartoon with some tenuously racist cartoon that would make me think, "Eh... Lame but whatever." What actually went through my head was that it was saying "Obama is a chimp and the cops just shot him... because of the stimulus? WTF?" At best, the cartoon is drawing parallels between an out of control president and an out of control ape... and being shot for it. At worst, the cartoon is portraying our president, a black man, as an out of control ape... and being shot for it. Can someone explain to me how this could be at all funny to anyone other than people who want the president shot to death?? Sean Delonas is deranged.

Many have refered to the history of African Americans being associated with Monkeys. I would hope that we have gotten past this sort of tired old racial cliche. But then that old uneasy feelin' creeps in that makes us wary and suspect of any one, thing or idea that we are not familliar with or is not in our comfort zone. So we make fun of it. This being exemplified by the plethora of jokes gags IMs and emails that circulated the globe after B.O. (not a racial slur intended to infer that all Blacks have Body Odor) was elected. If indeed this cartoon was intentended to be a racial slur then from the response it has created I would say it was succesful, as many have interpreted it to be just that. I personally dont hate Blacks or Monkeys but I guess there are a lot of haters out there that just haven't gotten over the whole emancipation thing. And this attitude has been passed along and nutured for over 200 years and appears to be alive and well here in 2009. At the very least the cartoon is food for thought. As far as the stimulus bill now there is a subject that would be fodder for wrist slashing humor. That is if it wern't so sad. In closing, How an individual percieves the content of the cartoon in question says volumes about their point of view and their character. Your servant, Ozzie

I love this idea that if you see the obvious racism in the cartoon -- which 98% of the world sees instantly -- then that just means you are racist. By the same logic, I'm a racist for finding my grandfather's use of the word "nigger" racist. After all, my grandfather doesn't *think* he's being racist -- therefore, he isn't! Racism exists entirely outside of your control, your interpretation, your "intent". It works the same way language works. You don't get to decide what words mean each time you open your mouth. Words mean what they mean because of the cultural/linguistic environment that makes them intelligible in the first place. Same with racist cartoons. If a cartoon equates the president with a monkey, it doesn't matter what you think. Because in the cultural/linguistic environment in which we live -- and all you have to do is remember the *dozens* of Obama monkey puppets during the campaign, the Curious George Obama T-shirts, etc. -- that racism is just a fact: a fact of the cultural/linguistic environment that makes the cartoon intelligible in the first place.

You might be absolutely right about the Post's intentions in this matter; however, in a society that has no real functioning mechanism to discuss race and ethnicity in a substantive manner, do you not concede that the author's intentions are very easily misconstrued? Moreover, do you suppose its possible that a seeded, socialized or somehow ingrained racism comes into play here, regardless of the cartoonist's intentions on-face? I think the fact that you and so many others feel it necessary to opine on this cartoon (and I certainly do not mean that pejoratively -- I feel these debates are productive in the utmost) suggests there's some sort of gray area in play here, and for that reason, I disagree with the decision to publish the cartoon. Moreover, given the Post's reputation as provocateur, it seems to me that they were almost asking for this blowback, which is at best disingenuous (given their stated position) and at worst, well, racist or at least tolerant of racist speech.

Luzer's tone deafness on this is stunning. This ancient racial stereotype is still so prevalent that the image of the cartoon actually leads one to imagaine what black person the cartoonist was writing about. The answer is Obama because it is clearly his stimulus bill, regardless of congress' role in its actual writing. With racists and their apologists constantly looking for ways to clandestinely demonize those who conservatives see as the beneficiaries of liberal policies, we must be ever vigilant to not only call them out on blantant racism, but to oppose their efforts to inject subtle (plausibly deniable) racism into the otherwise acceptable forms of parody and satire.

Why is it that anyone disagreeing with the consensus that this cartoon is racist is immediately dismissed as "disingenuous" or worse, racist themselves. I certainly didn't think the cartoon was funny, and I am well aware of the grotesque and racist comparisons to monkeys that have historically been made about African Americans. I was disgusted by the Curious George garbage that McCain supporters were peddling. However, when I saw the cartoon, my first reaction was that it was a clumsy attempt to say that the stimulus bill was so poorly written, it was as if a monkey had written it. And no, Obama didn't "write" the bill, Congress did. Could the cartoonist have been trying to compare the dead chimp to the president? Perhaps. But reasonable people can interpret the same cartoon differently.

I think Luzer is right that the artist didn't mean anything racist with the cartoon. The thought didn't even cross my mind when I first saw it. However I am white so obviously I would react differently to the cartoon than a black person. The artist is also white so I can imagine he didn't see how the comparison could be taken offensively and therefore probably didn't mean for it to be offensive. I am more offended by the lack of sensitivity to the death of the chimpanzee than anything else.

Your article is disgusting. I feel soiled even reading it. I am a white elderly lady from Wisconsin. I'll never forget having a history book in grade school that pictured black lawmakers in the South during Recontruction looking like apes. This crap has been around a long time and must be roundly denounced not "nuanced". I suspect either that you are not from this country or that you're just trying to be glib or clever. Perhaps not caring who you hurt.

It isn't questionable whether this cartoon is racist. But what becomes significant and incredibly disgusting are the pathetic attempts at apologizing for it. Defenders of bigotry just can't let go. They will forever be rationalizing their perverse ideologies. Only time and the short cycle of human life can eradicate this scourge.

this comment is for Luzer (loser). Any person who is not black kill me when they make comments like," thats not a racist joke" are b"lack people shoulldnt take this offensive". but the bottom line is your not black, you have never been discriminating against for being black you dont know anything about being black so you have no place to judge what should be offensive and what shouldnt. lets say this person who created this cartoon wasn't trying to make a racial joke (wich he was) after coming up with this concept and maping it out if he has any common sense he had to look back and say hmmmmm maybe this might be a lil offensive to are president who wrote the stimulis bill because calling black people monkeys is very popular racial slur. RIGHT THERE after having that thought and still publishing the cartoon is proof that it was intended to be a racial joke calling president OBama a monkey. all i have to say in response is he is already our president and he already signed the stimulis bill. as much as u hating ass people want to do something to stop it u cant . SO JUST STOP HATIN. HA HA

But I eventually wearied of the unconscious bigotry often expressed in your pages. Coming from San Francisco, I figured you'd immediately get the overt racism inherent in this deplorable cartoon. So allow me to express some bigotry of my own: I suspect you probably live in the Marina or the Castro & don't have much truck with folks in the Western Addition, the Tenderloin or Bayview, (much less Oakland.) Many White Liberals lead an insular existence, but the irony of working & writing for a periodical named after Mother Jones is deep. She would have kicked your lilly butts. She would have forced you to get out more and hang w/ some people not like you. Oh, and hire some minority writers for chrissakes.

say what you want Daniel, we all know what's up........ check the similarity Daniel and denial ....hummm

Written undoubtedly by a white guy

I believe treating this cartoon as merely a racist episode is missing the point. It must be viewed as incindiary speech. As I said in another forum. For those who fail to see the "humor" of the cartoon: The police (righteous authority?) have just SHOT the MONKEY who had the audacity to author the stimulus bill, with the comment "they (who, liberals?) will have to find someone else" to author the next one, ha ha! This code speech not only suggests the old racist idea of black (president) equals monkey, but INVITES HIS JUSTIFIED ASSASSINATION!!!!! How can you be missing this? I'm sure there are some in the target audience who aren't. How many of our liberal leaders have to be shot before we wake up? During the previous administration, people were detained for wearing T shirts saying anything even vaguely negative about Bush or his administration. I want to know why the Secret Service isn't closing the Post's editorial office and detaining people.

Okay, in this country "free" speech is allowed but not the kind that incites violence. I don't know what the cartoonist was thinking. However, I am saddened by all of it - the cartoon and some of the comments. The USA's deplorable economic condition, a President as much "black" as he is "white" so why is he termed a "black" President unless it is his choice to so label himself in that way and/or because his skin is darker than concrete, a dead chimpanzee and a distraught owner and a disfigured friend with serious injuries, an animal with DNA closest to human DNA considered very intelligent, Use of the term "mental defectives" to describe anyone. In my home we may label actions that seem less than smart as stupid or idiotic but never people. No name-calling or put downs for people or creatures - after all, we humans are also part of the animal kingdom. As a special education teacher, I am offended whenever I hear terms such as "mental defective" or "retard". It boils a person down to only one aspect of their self - an intellectual challenge and disregards all other parts of the whole. Martin Gardner discussed the concept of "Multiple Intelligences" and all of us have some form of intelligence. Some of us can handle linear equations while others smile in a way that makes others feel warmly welcomed. Some of us may play an instrument or our vocal cords while others are fluid on ice skates. Some of us aurally attuned while others are visually tuned in, still others have incredible sense of balance. We are all gifted in one way or another. All of us are T.A.B.S.= Temporarily Able Bodied... until we aren't. In fact, frequently, the most successful people achieve greatness not because of innate ability or intelligence but rather by sustained and substantial effort along with resourceful action that enables them to overcome obstacles and sometimes innate abilities actually get in the way. Oh, and some persons with mental challenges become phenomenally successful as a result of their challenges. They "see" or experience the world in a different way than the rest of us. If anyone using the term "mental defective" has actually ever worked with or attempted a sincere friendship with a person with intellectual challenges in order to expand one's mind (yes, the "intellectually challenged" will expand the mind of the greatest genius) rather than gawk, be unkind or take advantage of the person, then that person reaching out to a person with an intellectual challenge would be enriched and have developed a greater understanding of the achievements of others as well as the way we all have areas of strengths and areas in need of further development. Persons on both ends of the Bell Curve have long been marginalized by our society - whether persons with physical challenges, behavioral challenges, social challenges, who speak, move, look or sound differently or who are advanced and stand out and are "nerds". Shame on everyone who considers racism wrong but not other -isms.